Ted Cruz just destroyed the entire 2016 field, the media, and the moderators in one debate response, and indeed his entire performance was top notch.

Analysts have determined that Ted Cruz's remarks had a record breaking focus group dial response that registered as the highest number ever recorded since this has been measured since 1996. It was highly received even by moderates. Business Insider said that Ted scored the biggest hit in debate history.

The secret reason why Ted Cruz was able to deliver that homerun debate response was because, in addition to being a worldwide debate champion, he has an audiographic eidetic memory that enabled him to precisely list line by line what each moderator specifically asked each candidate without notes to deliver extemporaneously an unscripted, devastating debate response.

Part of why it was so well received was because it was impossible to rehearse given that the content reflected precisely what happened in the moment and the unpredictable words of the moderators that night.

Ted Cruz was the clear winner. He called for a revival of the gold standard, abolishing the IRS, Audit the Fed, ending QE, the biggest tax cut, and offered the moderator a "famous Colorado brownie."

At 10/30/2015 10:03:01 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:Ted Cruz just destroyed the entire 2016 field, the media, and the moderators in one debate response, and indeed his entire performance was top notch.

Agreed, the response was brilliant.

Analysts have determined that Ted Cruz's remarks had a record breaking focus group dial response that registered as the highest number ever recorded since this has been measured since 1996. It was highly received even by moderates. Business Insider said that Ted scored the biggest hit in debate history.

For an individual answer, that's very true. However, I think Rubio was the overall champion.

The secret reason why Ted Cruz was able to deliver that homerun debate response was because, in addition to being a worldwide debate champion, he has an audiographic eidetic memory that enabled him to precisely list line by line what each moderator specifically asked each candidate without notes to deliver extemporaneously an unscripted, devastating debate response.

I didn't know that... very interesting. It was nice that he gave examples of the egregious questions being asked. It added a lot of effect.

Part of why it was so well received was because it was impossible to rehearse given that the content reflected precisely what happened in the moment and the unpredictable words of the moderators that night.

That's true. Extemporaneous answers account for the most memorable moments.

Ted Cruz was the clear winner. He called for a revival of the gold standard, abolishing the IRS, Audit the Fed, ending QE, the biggest tax cut, and offered the moderator a "famous Colorado brownie."

He was definitely a winner, but I think Rubio shined the brightest, with Cruz at second.

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

I've watched all the debates (both sides), and I think the Republicans have a reasonable irritation with the media. At the Dem debate, they asked questions about policy, and seemed to give them room to answer. There were one or two questions, that tried to appear to be antagonistic, but really were nothing when compared to questions the Republican candidates received. Yes, this is media, trying to get ratings and viewership, so I can understand that conflict will help bring in viewers; however, the American public is trying to pick a President, and we should be able to hear what their policy views are, and how they plan to reach those goals- in concrete specifics (from both sides).

I wasn't leaning towards Cruz after the first couple debates, b/c he came off kind of like your everyday run of the mill politician (tone wise); however, his performance in the 3rd debate was delivered extremely well. He came off "presidential", calm, confident, and had good ideas, and backed up the ways in which he would deliver. I still see Rand, Huckabee, Christie, Kasich, and especially Bush as sideshows, who should drop out due to lack of support. Rubio was good, but seemed to get flustered at times, IMO.

I was open and honest about Sanders in my other posts (don't agree with him, but he is down to earth, convicting in his beliefs, and doesn't pander to people), so this isn't a lovefest for Cruz. I don't like Clinton, but she also shows leadership ability, and could be described as "Presidential". I'm a numbers guy, and I liked a lot of what I heard in this last debate- many good ideas about reducing government, taxes to stimulate the economy, but I wish "we the people" could get a side by side contrast in specifics on what each candidate, Dem or Repub would do, and how. Clinton and Sanders offered free stuff, but didn't give realistic numbers to back up how to pay for their programs. "Tax the rich" doesn't pay for everything (although they could afford to pay more), and people are delusional if they think that just taxing is the answer- spending has to be addressed as well. The tax code needs to be fixed desperately, and we need jobs, and better wages.

Our government should be focused on protecting the people, upholding the law/constitution, and mainly the economy. Social issues should play second fiddle to these 3 categories, while they are important, history has proved that the more government is involved, the worse off things get. A lot of talk about letting the states handle things more makes sense, instead of the one size fits all. Think about, what works in New York and California, may not work in the Dakotas, and Alabama. More control over policies should be given back to the states, IMO.

At 10/30/2015 5:37:50 PM, ColeTrain wrote:For an individual answer, that's very true. However, I think Rubio was the overall champion.

He was definitely a winner, but I think Rubio shined the brightest, with Cruz at second.

1. Rubio didn't offer any substance in the debate. What was his tax plan? What is his plan on any economic issue? I learned nothing about his policies in the debate about economics. He argued about minutia with Jeb on Florida inside politics & Senate attendance and an attack on Hillary & the media.

2. While Rubio trampled Jeb Bush, an unpopular, declining candidate polling in single digits, Ted Cruz defeated an entire television network, the media, every candidate, & the establishment. So Rubios triumph was over Jeb, Ted's was over a much bigger and more relevant target.

Since the debate, Ted raised more money and has knocked Rubio out in Iowa and is within striking distance of Ben & Trump.

At 10/30/2015 5:37:50 PM, ColeTrain wrote:For an individual answer, that's very true. However, I think Rubio was the overall champion.

He was definitely a winner, but I think Rubio shined the brightest, with Cruz at second.

1. Rubio didn't offer any substance in the debate. What was his tax plan? What is his plan on any economic issue? I learned nothing about his policies in the debate about economics. He argued about minutia with Jeb on Florida inside politics & Senate attendance and an attack on Hillary & the media.

What did Cruz provide, on the other hand? Besides, the questions he was given forced him to neglect more important issues, as they pressed him on the ones you mentioned. Opportunity wasn't prevalent for any candidate.

2. While Rubio trampled Jeb Bush, an unpopular, declining candidate polling in single digits, Ted Cruz defeated an entire television network, the media, every candidate, & the establishment. So Rubio's triumph was over Jeb, Ted's was over a much bigger and more relevant target.

Rubio also responded to the media, though maybe not with the same impact as did Cruz. He was terrorized by questions from Jeb and the media, and had to wade through all of those.

Since the debate, Ted raised more money and has knocked Rubio out in Iowa and is within striking distance of Ben & Trump.

That's good! I love Cruz! Top 3 candidate along with Carson and Rubio (though I haven't decided the order). That means a lot of people thought he did well. I was simply voicing my opinion; I think Rubio did the best. Here's some good reads about the debate, which somewhat support my opinion.

At 11/2/2015 10:05:28 PM, ColeTrain wrote:What did Cruz provide, on the other hand?

Did you read my OP? Ted laid out more specific policies & plans than all the others combined. Steve Forbes, other Forbes writers, and Larry Kudlow praised his tax plan.

Ted called for an elimination of the IRS, a Fed audit, a gold standard, an end to quantitative easing, etc.

Here's one of his responses:

"If you want a 10% flat tax where the numbers add up, I rolled out my tax plan today. It is a simple flat tax where for individuals, a family of four pays nothing on the first $36,000.

After that you pay 10% as a flat tax going up. The billionaire and the working man, no hedge fund manager pays less than his secretary.

On top of that, there is a business flat tax of 16%. Now that applies universally to giant corporations that with lobbyists right now are not paying taxes, and as small business.

And you wanted to know the numbers, the Tax Foundation, which has scored every one of our plans, shows that this plan will allow the economy to generate 4.9 million jobs, to raise wages over 12%, and to generate 14% growth.

And it costs, with dynamic scoring, less than a trillion dollars. Those are the hard numbers. And every single income decile sees a double-digit increase in after-tax income."

-- Ted Cruz, CNBC Debate

Besides, the questions he was given forced him to neglect more important issues, as they pressed him on the ones you mentioned. Opportunity wasn't prevalent for any candidate.

They were as unfair to Ted as they were Marco, but one of them squeezed in more substance. Granted, opportunity for Rubio to be substantive may have been slimmer, but then what substance was being praised?

Rubio also responded to the media, though maybe not with the same impact as did Cruz. He was terrorized by questions from Jeb and the media, and had to wade through all of those.

Which is why I grant him 2nd place.

That's good! I love Cruz! Top 3 candidate along with Carson and Rubio (though I haven't decided the order).

Glad you at least have Ted in your top 3. As far as Rubio, he is my favorite establishment candidate. Problem is, he is therefore unelectable to me given that his policies are pretty bad which is why the establishment likes him.

He supports TPP, has a neocon hawk foreign policy endorsed by the CFR, supports NSA spying, very weak on immigration, compromises with the Democrats, etc.

At 11/2/2015 10:05:28 PM, ColeTrain wrote:What did Cruz provide, on the other hand?

Did you read my OP? Ted laid out more specific policies & plans than all the others combined. Steve Forbes, other Forbes writers, and Larry Kudlow praised his tax plan.

Yes, I read the OP, I was just wanting to know why these were *so* good.

Ted called for an elimination of the IRS, a Fed audit, a gold standard, an end to quantitative easing, etc.

A gold standard? Does that much gold even exist?

Here's one of his responses:

"If you want a 10% flat tax where the numbers add up, I rolled out my tax plan today. It is a simple flat tax where for individuals, a family of four pays nothing on the first $36,000.

After that you pay 10% as a flat tax going up. The billionaire and the working man, no hedge fund manager pays less than his secretary.

On top of that, there is a business flat tax of 16%. Now that applies universally to giant corporations that with lobbyists right now are not paying taxes, and as small business.

And you wanted to know the numbers, the Tax Foundation, which has scored every one of our plans, shows that this plan will allow the economy to generate 4.9 million jobs, to raise wages over 12%, and to generate 14% growth.

And it costs, with dynamic scoring, less than a trillion dollars. Those are the hard numbers. And every single income decile sees a double-digit increase in after-tax income."

-- Ted Cruz, CNBC Debate

Sounds good.

Besides, the questions he was given forced him to neglect more important issues, as they pressed him on the ones you mentioned. Opportunity wasn't prevalent for any candidate.

They were as unfair to Ted as they were Marco, but one of them squeezed in more substance. Granted, opportunity for Rubio to be substantive may have been slimmer, but then what substance was being praised?

Agreed, and how he handled THOSE questions.

Rubio also responded to the media, though maybe not with the same impact as did Cruz. He was terrorized by questions from Jeb and the media, and had to wade through all of those.

Which is why I grant him 2nd place.

Fair enough.

That's good! I love Cruz! Top 3 candidate along with Carson and Rubio (though I haven't decided the order).

Glad you at least have Ted in your top 3. As far as Rubio, he is my favorite establishment candidate. Problem is, he is therefore unelectable to me given that his policies are pretty bad which is why the establishment likes him.

Yep, me too. He's a good candidate. I see.

He supports TPP, has a neocon hawk foreign policy endorsed by the CFR, supports NSA spying, very weak on immigration, compromises with the Democrats, etc.

Yeah... Better than most.

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW